Modeling the Shear Connection in Adjacent Box-Beam

Bridges with Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete Joints.

I: Model Calibration and Validation
Husam H. Hussein, S.M.ASCE1; Kenneth K. Walsh, A.M.ASCE2; Shad M. Sargand, M.ASCE3;
Fouad T. Al Rikabi, S.M.ASCE4; and Eric P. Steinberg, P.E., M.ASCE5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Recent research on ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) for connection elements in highway bridges indicates an
improvement in the performance of the overall bridge superstructure. However, there is limited information on the effect of the material
and bond strength of the UHPC on the load transfer mechanism between adjacent box girders. A three-dimensional finite-element (FE)
model was developed to study the interface between UHPC and high-strength concrete (HSC) highway bridge connections. The UHPC-
HSC interface was modeled using traction-separation, damage initiation criteria, and damage evolution while taking into account adhe-
sion, friction, and the nonlinear material behavior. Material properties were determined directly from laboratory testing, and the interface
parameters were identified through model calibration using direct tension test results and friction coefficients reported in the previous
work. The model was validated by simulating the laboratory tests conducted at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC), and good agreement between numerical and experimental results was obtained. Finally,
numerical simulations of two adjacent box-girder models using the proposed interface parameters and other interface models from past
research were compared, and the results highlight the importance of using a high-fidelity model to accurately represent the system behav-
ior. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001070. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Adhesion; Ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC); High-strength concrete (HSC); ASTM C1404/C1404M-98; Bond
strength; Friction coefficient; Interfacial properties; Bridge connections; Adjacent box-beam; Finite-element (FE) method.

Introduction accelerated deterioration of the beam-joint system (Russell 2011).

In the 1950s, adjacent precast prestressed concrete box beams were
introduced for bridges for the first time. Adjacent box-beam bridges
still are preferred for short to intermediate spans in several states
because they are simple to design, easy to build, and cost-effective
(Russell 2009). Adjacent box-beam bridges are typically con-
structed of box beams placed side-by-side and overlaid with a deck
paved with concrete or asphalt. Load is transferred between the
beams by longitudinal joints filled with grout and aided by trans-
verse posttensioning (TPT) with strands or tie bars. The adjacent
box-beam design with grouted joints provides high longitudinal and
transverse stiffness resulting in good structural performance.
However, this type of bridge often suffers from joint cracking,
which can lead to the leakage of corrosive agents and the
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ohio Univ., Stocker
Center, Athens, OH 45701 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-4657-2499. E-mail: husam.hussein@outlook.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ohio Univ., Stocker
Center, Athens, OH 45701. E-mail: walshk@ohio.edu
3
Russ Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ohio Univ., Stocker
Center, Athens, OH 45701. E-mail: sargand@ohio.edu
4
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ohio Univ., Stocker
Center, Athens, OH 45701. E-mail: fouad.alrikabi@outlook.com
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ohio Univ., Stocker Center,
Athens, OH 45701. E-mail: steinber@ohio.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 10, 2016;
approved on February 23, 2017; published online on June 6, 2017.
Discussion period open until November 6, 2017; separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal
of Bridge Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
One way to address this problem is to replace the joint grout with an
alternative material that has superior material and mechanical prop-
erties. One such material is ultrahigh-performance concrete
(UHPC), which has a compressive strength of 165 MPa, an elastic
modulus of 48 GPa, a tensile strength of 8.5 MPa, and reduced per-
meability when compared with traditional concrete (Graybeal 2006,
2014). It has also been shown that UHPC has superior adhesive
strength compared with traditional concretes (Hussein et al. 2016).
Because of its superior mechanical properties and improved dura-
bility, UHPC has been used in a variety of applications for improv-
ing the performance of highway bridges. An extensive summary of
these applications can be found in the literature (Russell and
Graybeal 2013; Graybeal 2014).
Recently, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) intro-
duced a new joint design for adjacent box-beam bridges using
UHPC along with transverse shear reinforcement bars (SRBs), as
shown in Fig. 1(a) (Yuan and Graybeal 2016). The combination of
UHPC and the transverse SRBs creates a continuous reinforced slab
by connecting the top flange of the box beams (Graybeal 2014). The
joint performance was investigated via full-scale laboratory testing.
The test specimen consisted of two adjacent precast prestressed box
beams spanning 15.25 m between supports and connected by a
UHPC shear key with 12.7-mm-diameter transverse steel reinforce-
ment bars. The steel SRBs were embedded 457 mm into the beams
and 14 mm into the UHPC shear keys, and were spaced at 203 mm
in the longitudinal direction, as shown in Fig. 1. The beams were
tested under millions of cycles of structural loading and 10 cycles of
thermal loading to simulate traffic and environmental conditions,
respectively. The researchers observed that UHPC enhanced the
connection capacity beyond the tensile strength of the box-beam

© ASCE 04017043-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. (a) FHWA adjacent box-beam connection details using UHPC and transverse SRBs; (b) SRB details
concrete. In a later study, the same FHWA shear key design was
used in the Sollars Road Bridge over Lees Creek in Fayette County,
Ohio, to study its performance under field conditions (Steinberg
et al. 2015). The bridge consisted of seven precast prestressed box
beams and had a span of 18.6 m. Similar to the FHWA specimen,
12.7-mm-diameter steel SRBs were embedded 457 mm into the
beams and 127 mm into the UHPC shear keys and were spaced at
203 mm in the longitudinal direction. To evaluate the field perform-
ance of the bridge, the beams and shear keys were instrumented to
measure beam displacement, strain, and temperature under truck
and environmental loads (Steinberg et al. 2015).
Research on UHPC for connection elements in bridges indicated
an improvement in the performance of the overall bridge super-
structure. The improvement in performance can be attributed to the
higher strength of the UHPC relative to traditional grouting materi-
als and the higher bond strength between the UHPC and other
bridge components due to the high adhesion of the UHPC material
(Hussein et al. 2016). Although the significance of adhesion on the
bond strength of UHPC has been demonstrated in laboratory test
specimens, there is limited information on the effect of these prop-
erties of the UHPC on the load transfer mechanism between adja-
cent box beams. An economical approach to analyzing the UHPC
joint is through finite-element (FE) modeling. However, such analy-
sis requires a detailed description of the mechanical and material
properties of the interface components as well as of the interface
itself so that the interaction between all components at the interface
can be accurately represented.
Background
Past research on highway bridges has shown that the strength at the
interface between components plays an important role in the load
transfer between bridge members. In several experimental studies,
the effect of different parameters on the concrete-to-concrete and
UHPC-to-concrete interface strength was investigated. In addition,
several FE models have been calibrated using small-scale or full-
scale experimental results to predict the overall bridge behavior.
Issa et al. (2003) studied the performance of four different grout
materials for the joints between concrete components using vertical
shear, direct tension, and flexural tests. A FE program was used to
model the vertical shear test. However, the authors did not provide
any details regarding the interface between the joint and concrete
components as represented in the model. Results of the FE
© ASCE 04017043-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043
modeling showed that only cracking and crushing in the grout/con-
crete occurred, and the model was unable to capture bond failure at
the joint interface, which was the primary mode of failure observed
during testing. Badwan and Liang (2007) presented the results of
live-load testing of precast posttensioned concrete multibeam decks
and associated linear FE analysis. In the FE model, the authors
assumed that there was no adhesion or friction at the interfaces
between joints and beams. A comparison of the experimental and
the FE simulation results revealed differences in the strain data with
the errors ranging from 18 to 30%. Fu et al. (2011) studied the effect
of TPT on the behavior of adjacent box beams under a truck load
and used experimental data to calibrate a FE model of the bridge. In
accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) code, the
authors assumed a friction coefficient of 0.6 and no adhesion at the
interface between the shear keys and beams. The model was based
on the following assumptions: (1) pin-roller boundary conditions,
(2) full bond between beams and concrete overlay, and (3) linear
elastic material behavior for all components. To calibrate the FE
model to the experimental results, the researchers added a spring at
the beam ends and varied the stiffness until agreement between the
model and actual bridge behavior was obtained. Another FE model
was developed by Ulku et al. (2010) to study the TPT procedure for
an adjacent box-beam bridge and to calculate the stresses along the
longitudinal joints between beams. The authors assumed a full bond
between the joints and beams, and the behavior at the interface
between components was not considered in the model. Porter et al.
(2011) evaluated five deck panel connections experimentally and
numerically to determine the cracking and ultimate flexural strength
of the joints. A cohesive zone material was used to model the inter-
face behavior between the joint and deck panel surfaces. However,
the contact strength of the cohesive material was assumed to be the
same because the maximum tensile strength of the concrete and
friction at the interface was not considered. Grace et al. (2008,
2013) developed a three-dimensional (3D) FE model to investigate
the effect of TPT and the number of transverse diaphragms on the
behavior of adjacent box-beam bridges using unbonded carbon fiber
composite cables. Nonlinear analysis was used to model the con-
crete behavior, and the interface between shear keys and the beams
depended only on the friction coefficient. The authors neglected the
effect of adhesion between shear keys and beams. Dias-da-Costa
et al. (2012) calibrated a numerical model with experimental data
using a push-off test composed of two identical L-shaped halves.
The longitudinal shear strength between two normal concrete layers
J. Bridge Eng.
 with steel reinforcement crossing the interface was evaluated by
using an experimental push-off test and FE model results. The
authors identified some model parameters analytically and others
by fitting the load-displacement curves obtained from testing.
Interface parameters considered were the elastic shear stiffness, in-
ternal friction angle, cohesion, fracture energy, dilatancy angle, and
bond-slip relationship between steel connectors. However, a fric-
tion coefficient at the interface was not considered in the model.
With the recent introduction of UHPC for bridge connections,
additional FE studies have been conducted to investigate the per-
formance of bridges incorporating this new material. Chen and
Graybeal (2010, 2012a) used the experimental results of two UHPC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
prestressed pi-beams (pi-beam without and with the UHPC joint) to
calibrate FE models. In the model with the UHPC joint, hard contact
and friction were used to model the contact areas between the joint
and the beams. The value of the friction coefficient was selected as
0.1 to achieve convergence in the FE simulation. However, the
model did not account for the adhesion strength at the interface
between the joint and the beam surfaces. The authors observed that
the bond between the UHPC joint and the top flange of the beam
cannot be assumed to be fully bonded, because cracking began at
this location before reaching the ultimate load in the laboratory test.
Grace et al. (2013) presented experimental and FE model results on
the performance of a new bridge. The bridge consisted of five adja-
cent concrete-decked bulb T-beams connected by UHPC shear key
joints and two unbonded transverse carbon fiber composite cable
strands positioned at four locations throughout the length of bridge.
In the FE model, the interface between the UHPC joints and con-
crete beams was assumed to be fully bonded. This assumption was
based on the results of flexural, slant-shear, and pull-off tests that
evaluated the bond strength between UHPC and normal strength
concrete (NSC) (41 MPa compressive strength). The results of these
tests showed that all failure occurred in the NSC. However, high-
strength concrete (HSC) (64 MPa compressive strength) was used
for the actual beams; therefore, the fully bonded assumption may
not have been representative of the actual interface condition.
Steinberg et al. (2013) developed 3D FE models to evaluate the
shear key performance between adjacent box beams subject to truck
loading and a temperature gradient. The first model simulated two
adjacent box beams connected by TPT bars and a shear key with
nonshrinking grout. The second and third models simulated two
and seven adjacent box beams, respectively, connected by trans-
verse SRBs and UHPC shear keys. The authors assumed a friction
coefficient of 0.8 and specified a critical shear value of 5.5 MPa at
the interface between the shear key and beams for all models. Also,
contact stiffnesses with values of 2.7 MPa/mm for concrete-to-
concrete contact and 13.6 MPa/mm for UHPC-to-concrete contact
were used at the interface to specify the penetration between surfa-
ces. The second model showed that there were differences between
the FE model and experimental results. In a later study, Steinberg
et al. (2014) used a linear 3D FE model to study two adjacent box
beams connected using a UHPC shear key with transverse SRBs.
No details regarding the interface were provided for the FE model.
Results showed that there were differences in the relative displace-
ments obtained from the FE models and the experimental results.
Harris et al. (2014) evaluated the bond behavior between NSC and
UHPC using splitting tensile, slant-shear, and pull-off tests with a
linear 3D FE model. Fully bonded behavior was assumed at the
interface between UHPC and NSC.
Past research in FE modeling of bridge connections has
neglected the effect of adhesion on the interfacial bond between
concrete materials and/or used linear analysis. However, recent
research has shown that UHPC has very high adhesive strength
© ASCE 04017043-3
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043
when cast against a HSC substrate with varying degrees of rough-
ness (Hussein et al. 2016). Also, the adhesive strength increases
with surface roughness because the contact area between UHPC
and HSC will increase. Specifically, cohesion/adhesion values of
3.01, 5.01, and 5.63 MPa for smooth, sandblasted (midrough), and
exposed aggregate (rough) surfaces have been reported, respec-
tively (Hussein et al. 2016). These values are higher than those that
have been reported for NSC, such as 0.0 and 2.65 MPa for smooth
and midrough surfaces, respectively (Júlio et al. 2004; Santos et al.
2007). Therefore, adhesion between UHPC and HSC will play an
important role in load transfer and should be accounted for in the
analysis of UHPC bridge connections.
Objectives
The objective of the present study was to develop a high-fidelity 3D
FE model capable of accurately representing the interaction
between UHPC and HSC at the joints of adjacent box-beam bridges
and then use the model to investigate the load transfer mechanism.
In this paper, only the results of the model development and valida-
tion are reported, whereas the joint analysis results are presented in
a companion paper (Sargand et al. 2017). The UHPC-HSC interface
is modeled using traction-separation, damage initiation criteria
(DIC), and damage evolution, while taking into account adhesion,
friction, and the nonlinear behaviors of the material and interface.
First, a direct tension test (ASTM C1404/C1404M-98) (ASTM
2003) is modeled and calibrated using experimental data to deter-
mine the normal and tangential stiffness components of linear elas-
tic traction-separation behaviors and the total plastic displacement
for the damage evolution. For the maximum values of the contact
stresses, the experimental values of the adhesive/cohesive strength
obtained from the direct tension test are used. Then, a slant-shear
test (ASTM C882/C882M-13a) (ASTM 2013) is modeled and used
to validate the interface parameters and the friction coefficient
between UHPC and HSC through comparison with experimental
data. Finally, the model is used to represent the interface between
two adjacent box beams connected using a UHPC shear key and
transverse steel SRBs, and the model is validated by comparison
results to experimental data provided by the FHWA Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC).
Shear Resistance at the Interface
Two different cases may be considered for the shear strength at the
interface between concrete materials: the first one is without loss of
adhesion, and the second one is with relative slip between concrete
parts. It has been reported that in the second case the shear-friction
theory applies in which the behavior of the interface is determined
by cohesion (aggregate interlock), friction, and shear reinforcement
action (Santos and Júlio 2012). According to ACI (2011), the mini-
mum shear resistance at the interface between concrete materials
depends only on two parameters, the friction coefficient and the
shear-friction reinforcement. The ACI (2011) shear calculation
neglects the adhesive strength at the interface between concrete
components cast at different times and assumes that there is already
a crack along the interface plane. On the other hand, Zilch and
Reinecke (2000) reported that a combination of three load transfer
mechanisms, namely shear reinforcement, shear-friction between
concrete parts, and cohesion/adhesion between particles, contribute
to the shear resistance at an interface. The same three mechanisms
are considered in Section 5.8.4 of AASHTO LFRD bridge design
J. Bridge Eng.

specifications (AASHTO 2012), which defines the shear stress at
the interface between concrete cast at different times as
vu ¼ cAcv þ m ðAvf fy þ Pc Þ (1)
|{z} |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
cohesion friction
where Acv = area of concrete at the shear interface; Avf = area of
shear reinforcement; c = cohesion; m = friction coefficient; fy =
yield stress of the reinforcement; and Pc = compressive force nor-
mal to the shear interface. According to Eq. (1), the shear strength
value depends on cohesion/adhesion strength and the friction coeffi-
cient. Therefore, these parameters were accounted for in the FE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
model to capture the interface behavior between concrete elements
cast at different times.
FE Analysis
Material Modeling
In the present study, all FE analyses were performed using the
commercial software package Abaqus 6.12-3. There are two con-
crete constitutive models available in Abaqus, namely the con-
crete smeared cracking (CSC) and concrete damaged plasticity
(CDP) models. Chen and Graybeal (2010, 2012a, b) recom-
mended using the CDP model for UHPC rather than the CSC
model due to a convergence problem and a lack of agreement
with the experimental results in the nonlinear stage. In this study,
the CDP model was used to model concrete constitutive behav-
iors. The nonlinear behavior of concrete was represented by iso-
tropic damage elasticity combined with isotropic tensile and com-
pressive plasticity. A softening stress-strain relationship was used
to represent tensile microcracks, whereas the compressive plastic
response followed by strain softening was used beyond the ulti-
mate compressive strength. In Abaqus, a viscoplastic regulariza-
tion can be used to improve the convergence rate in the softening
stage, using the ultimate tensile plastic strain and the maximum
tensile stress. The CDP model requires five additional parameters
including flow potential eccentricity (e ), a viscosity parameter
that defines viscoplastic regularization ( m ), the ratio of the second
stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the compressive
meridian such that the maximum principal stress is negative (Kc),
the ratio of the initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress to the
initial uniaxial compressive yield stress (s b0/s c0), and the dila-
tion angle in degrees ( c ).
Interface Modeling
To model the concrete-to-concrete interface, a traction-separation
model was used that requires material surface properties. The
traction-separation constitutive model offers a method to model
adhesive/cohesive connection by assuming zero thickness of the
interface. The traction-separation behaviors are linear elastic
traction-separation, DIC, and damage evolution models. The
linear elastic traction-separation parameters, Kn, Ks, and Kr, are
the normal and tangential stiffness components that relate to the
normal and shear separation across the interface before the ini-
tiation of damage. The contact stresses at the interface are the
normal contact stress in the pure normal mode (tn), the shear
contact stress along the first shear direction (ts), and the shear
contact stress along the second shear direction (tt), as shown in
Fig. 2; DIC occurs when the following quadratic stress-based
damage criterion for a cohesive surface is satisfied:
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043
Traction
tno (tso, tto)
1
kn (ks, kt)
1 Gc
δnf Separation
Fig. 2. Typical traction-separation response with exponential damage
evolution
!2 !2 !2
htn i hts i htt i
þ þ ¼1 (2)
tno tso tto
where tno , tso , and tto = maximum values of the contact stresses.
During the FE simulation, damage is initiated only when the value
from Eq. (2) is equal to 1. Once damage initiation has occurred,
damage evaluation is determined based on the total fracture energy
(Gc) or the total plastic displacement at failure (d fn Þ, and damage
evolution softening response can be either linear, exponential, or
user defined. It should be pointed out that some convergence diffi-
culties may occur when using traction-separation behavior.
However, these difficulties may be overcome by defining the vis-
cous regularization of the constitutive equations.
FE Models
Three different 3D FE models were used in the present study. The
first model was based on the direct tension test (ASTM C1404/
C1404M-98) (ASTM 2003) and was used along with experimental
data to identify the interface parameters between UHPC and HSC.
The second model was based on the slant-shear test (ASTM C882/
C882-13a) (ASTM 2013) and was used to validate the interface pa-
rameters along with the friction coefficients, which were back-
calculated in previous work using the Mohr-Coulomb theory and
direct tension test results (Hussein et al. 2016). The third model con-
sisted of two adjacent box beams connected by a UHPC joint and
transverse SRBs and was used to validate the interface model via
the global beam behavior. The slant-shear and adjacent box-beam
models were based on tests performed at FHWA-TFHRC, and data
from these tests were used in the validation.
Direct Tension Model
The direct tension test method (ASTM C1404/C1404M-98)
(ASTM 2003) was used to measure the adhesion value at the
UHPC-HSC interface by applying a direct tensile force to a UHPC-
HSC specimen until failure took place (Hussein et al. 2016).
Fig. 3(a) shows the cross section, test apparatus, and load configura-
tion. Three different degrees of surface roughness for the HSC sub-
strate were considered, namely smooth, midrough, and rough. The
smooth surface was the flat cut surface specified in ASTM C1404/
C1404M-98 (ASTM 2003), the midrough surface was a sandblasted
surface specified by the Ohio DOT Construction Specification
706.05 (ODOT 2013), and the rough surface was the exposed
04017043-4 J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. (Color) Direct tension test (ASTM C1404/C1404M-98): (a) cross section of mold assembly; (b) FE model

180
HSC
160
UHPC
140

120
Stress (MPa)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Strain

Fig. 4. Stress-strain relationships of UHPC and HSC to uniaxial loading in compression

aggregate surface recommended for UHPC joints by Russell and
Graybeal (2013) and Graybeal (2014). The average tensile stresses
and the mode of failure for the smooth, midrough, and rough surfa-
ces were measured to be 3.02 MPa at the bond line, 5.01 MPa at the
transition zone, and 5.63 MPa at the concrete substrate, respectively
(Hussein et al. 2016).
The FE model of the direct tension test consisted of five compo-
nents, the steel bolt, the pipe cap, the steel nipple, the HSC cylinder,
and the UHPC cylinder, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The concrete
cylinders and steel components were modeled with 8-node brick
elements with a maximum mesh size for the cylinders of 5 mm.
Boundary conditions were applied to the bottom of the steel bolt to
restrain its vertical and horizontal movement, and the load was
applied to the other end. The interface between the UHPC and HSC
cylinders was modeled using the traction-separation constitutive
model. The elastic behavior of the HSC, UHPC, and steel were
defined by their modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio. It should
be noted that the UHPC used in the present study is the Ductal

© ASCE 04017043-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043

 JS1000 brand UHPC manufactured by Lafarge North America
(Chicago) for structural application. To define the CDP model, a set
of experimental tests were performed to identify material parame-
ters such as Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, tension stiffening,
and compression softening of the UHPC and HSC. The stress-strain
data were obtained from the compression test (ASTM C39/C39M-
14a) (ASTM 2014) using two strain gauges installed on both the
UHPC and HSC cylinders. Fig. 4 represents the uniaxial stress-
strain relationships of UHPC and HCS materials. The tension stiff-
ening for the HSC was defined based on the fracture energy con-
cept. However, unlike conventional concrete, the tensile response
of UHPC is enhanced due to the transfer of the tensile force to the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
coefficients on the interface plane using the Mohr-Coulomb theory
along with the results of direct tension tests by Hussein et al.
(2016). The adhesion value at the UHPC-HSC interface with a
smooth surface has been identified, along with the cohesion values
of the HSC for the UHPC-HSC interfaces with midrough and rough
surfaces. Table 2 summarizes the results of the direct tension test
and the friction coefficient calculation.
The FE model of the slant-shear test comprised one half-
cylinder of UHPC and one half-cylinder of HSC. The cylinders’
dimensions were a 152-mm diameter and a 203-mm height, with a
connection plane oriented 60° from the horizontal. The UHPC and
the HSC cylinders were modeled with 8-node brick elements, with

steel fibers once the UHPC has cracked (Chen and Graybeal 2010, a maximum mesh size of 5 mm. Boundary conditions were applied
2012a, b). The tensile stress at failure was determined from indirect to the bottom surface of the HSC side to restrain the vertical and
tensile test (ASTM C496/C496M-11) (ASTM 2004) data. The CDP horizontal movement, and the load was applied to the top surface of
model parameters for the UHPC and HSC are listed in Table 1. For the UHPC side. The UHPC and HSC used in the FHWA-TFHRC
the steel components, the Poisson’s ratio and modulus of elasticity research had similar mix designs to those used in Hussein et al.
were taken to be 0.3 and 200 GPa, respectively. To establish the (2016), and the properties in Table 1 and Fig. 4 were used to repre-
interface parameters between the UHPC and HSC materials in the sent the elastic and inelastic behavior of the UHPC and HSC materi-
traction-separation model, the normal and tangential stiffness com- als. The interface between the UHPC and HSC cylinders was mod-
ponents (Kn, Ks, and Kr) and the total plastic displacement were cali- eled using the traction-separation constitutive model, with normal
brated by fitting the load-displacement curves from the direct ten- and tangential behaviors represented using hard contact and fric-
sion models to the experimental data. The maximum normal and tion, respectively. Model validation was achieved by loading the
tangential strengths (tno , tso , and tto ) were assumed to be the same in UHPC-HSC to failure and comparing the results with the FHWA-
the normal and tangential directions, and values of 3.02, 5.01, and TFHRC test data.
5.63 MPa were used for the smooth, midrough, and rough surfaces,
respectively. These values were determined via the direct tension Adjacent Box-Beam Model
test (ASTM C1404/C1404M-98) (ASTM 2003) and were previ-
The adjacent box-beam model was based on a load-test configura-
ously reported by Hussein et al. (2016).
tion used at the FHWA-TFHRC (Yuan and Graybeal 2016). The
box beams were connected with a UHPC joint and transverse steel
Slant-Shear Model SRBs. The two adjacent box-beam cross sections, the joint connec-
The slant-shear tests (ASTM C882/C882M-13a) (ASTM 2013) tion details, loading configuration, and instrumentation plan are
simulated in the present work were conducted at the FHWA- depicted in Fig. 5. The beams were 15.25 m long, 0.84 m deep, and
TFHRC. The test results were used to back-calculate the friction 0.91 m wide, and were prestressed using 15.24-mm-diameter low-
relaxation prestressing strands, all stressed to 195.7 kN. Each beam
contained 27 strands spaced in a grid pattern with 50.8-mm spacing,
Table 1. UHPC and HSC Properties Used in FE Modeling
and 9 of the strands were debonded 1.8 m from both ends of the
Property UHPC HSC beam. The beam material was HSC with a compressive strength of
a 67.8 MPa at the time of the test. The longitudinal joint between the
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 53 41a
adjacent beams was filled with the Ductal JS1000 brand UHPC
Poisson’s ratio 0.19a 0.17a
manufactured by Lafarge North America. Details of the joint are
Compressive strength (MPa) 158.58a 75a
shown in Fig. 5(d). TPT was not used to take full advantage of the
Maximum tensile stress (MPa) 15.9b 4.8a
UHPC material. However, the two adjacent box beams had 12.7-mm-
Fracture energy [Gf (N/m)] 87,559b 120c
diameter steel SRBs, Grade 60, installed transversely in the UHPC
Dilation angle ( c ) 15°b 36°c
joints to help with load transfer between beams. The SRBs were em-
Eccentricity (e ) 0.1b 0.1c
bedded 457 and 140 mm in the beam and shear key, respectively, as
s b0/s c0 1.16b 1.16c
shown in Fig. 5(c), and were spaced at 203 mm in the longitudinal
Kc 2/3b 2/3c
direction. Also, the exposed aggregate surface (rough surface) was
Viscosity parameter ( m ) 0.0b 0.001c
used to enhance the bond strength between the UHPC and HSC ma-
a
Test. terial. On one end of the beams [Fig. 5(e), Support A-A], a 305 
b
Chen and Graybeal (2010, 2012a, b). 762 mm steel plate with 50.8-mm thickness was connected to
c
Abaqus. another steel plate (305  457 mm with 50.8-mm thickness), which

Table 2. Friction Coefficients Back-Calculated Using the Results of Slant-Shear and Direct Tension Tests

Roughness degree Average P (kN) Failure s o (MPa) t n (MPa) s n (MPa) c or a (MPa) m

a
Smooth 75.86 Bond 9.4 4.1 2.3 3.02 0.44
Midrough 252.2 Bond 31.1 13.5 7.8 5.01 1.09
Rough 620.4 Concrete 76.5 33.1 19.1 5.63 1.44
Note: P = load; s o = axial compressive stress at failure; t n = shear stress; s n = normal stress; c = cohesion; a = adhesion; m = friction coefficient.
a
Adhesive strength.

© ASCE 04017043-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043

 was in contact with a load cell, as shown in Fig. 5(a). At the other
end of the beams [Fig. 5(e), Support B-B], a 305  762 mm steel
plate with 50.8-mm thickness was connected to two steel plates
(305  457 mm with 50.8-mm thickness), which were in contact
with two load cells, as shown in Fig. 5(b). At each support, a special
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mechanism was used to control the degree of rotational constraint
[Figs. 5(a and b)]. The aim of the rotational constraint was to create a
stiffer system that simulated the bridge condition and to increase the
load and moment that transferred through the shear key (Yuan and
Graybeal 2016). The constraining mechanism consisted of vertical

Fig. 5. (a) Cross section at Support A-A; (b) cross section at Support B-B; (c) loading configuration and instrumentation plan; (d) joint configuration;
(e) plane view of adjacent box beams

Fig. 6. (Color) (a) Test setup; (b) joint-SRBs before casting with UHPC; (c) Support A-A

© ASCE 04017043-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043

 tie bars anchored at one end in the concrete support and attached at
the other end to steel beams spanning the top of the box beams. A
force of 222 kN was applied at either end to prevent rotation in the
beams. Each beam was loaded at two points along its length, and the
loads were transferred to the beams using steel plates, as shown in
Figs. 5(c and e). During loading, vertical deflections at midspan
were measured by LVDTs attached to the bottom of the beams. In
addition to the vertical deflections, an LVDT was used to measure
the opening and closing of the joint at midspan. The LVDT locations
are shown in Fig. 5(c). The FHWA-TFHRC test setup, including the
joint detail and load cell locations, is shown in Fig. 6. Cyclic loads
were applied to the beams with a range of 22.2–422.6 kN in such a

120 South
North
100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

80
Load kip

60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200
Time

Fig. 7. Cyclic load from 422.6 to 22.2 kN

Fig. 8. (Color) FE mesh of the full model of two adjacent box beams

© ASCE 04017043-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043

 way that the loads were applied 180° out of phase. Before each
loading cycle began, the beams were preloaded with a 22.2-kN
static load. Fig. 7 shows the load pattern for the north and south
beams.
A FE model representing the adjacent box beams from the
FHWA-TFHRC testing was developed to validate the UHPC-HSC
joint interface model. The model consisted of the two box beams,
prestressing strands, supports, load plates, shear key, and the SRBs,
which are all shown in Fig. 8. Continuous solid elements were used
for all components. To capture the interface behavior at the UHPC-
HSC connection, a higher density mesh was used at this location. In
each beam, 27 strands were embedded in the concrete. The strands
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
surface (exposed aggregate) was assumed for the HSC to be consist-
ent with the FHWA-TFHRC test. The parameters used in the model
come from past laboratory studies by the authors along with the
results of the direct tension test simulations and then validated using
the slant-shear simulation. A multistep analysis was used to repre-
sent the sequence in which the two adjacent beams were loaded dur-
ing construction. The multistep procedure consisted of attaching
steel supports to the beams, applying the gravity load, prestressing
the box beams, adding the supports, applying the rotational con-
straint at the support bars, and applying the first load of 22.2 kN on
both beams. After all these steps were performed, a final loading
step was used to apply an additional load of 400.4 kN to one of the

were prestressed to 1,392.7 MPa, and elastic shortening was beams at midspan, resulting in total loads of 22.2 and 422.6 kN on
accounted for in the simulation. To capture the behavior of the the two beams. The difference in beam response obtained from the
beams with the constraining mechanisms at each end, the mecha- first and second loading steps was compared with the experimental
nism was modeled in the FE program. The tie bars at each end were result.
stressed to 220 MPa. Hard contact and a friction coefficient of 1.0
accounted for the normal and tangential behaviors at the interface
between the beams and the steel support plates. The elastic behavior Results and Discussion
of all steel components was defined by the modulus of elasticity and
Poisson’s ratio. The properties shown in Table 1, and those derived
from Fig. 4, were used to represent the elastic and inelastic behavior Direct Tension Model
of the UHPC and HSC materials. Also, material densities of 25, 24, Normal and tangential stiffness components for the linear elastic
and 77 kN/m3 for UHPC, HSC, and steel, respectively, were used to traction-separation model and the total plastic displacement for
calculate the deformation of these materials under the gravity load. damage evolution were obtained by calibrating the direct tension
The interface between the UHPC joint and HSC beams was mod- model so that the load-displacement curves matched the experimen-
eled using the traction-separation constitutive model, and the rough tal results for the three surface roughness types. A summary of the
calibrated interface model parameters between the UHPC and HSC
Table 3. Mechanical Properties of Interface for the different roughness types is provided in Table 3. A compari-
Property Smooth Midrough Rough son of load-deflection curves resulting from the calibrated FE mod-
els and the experiments is shown in Fig. 9. Generally, good agree-
3
Knn (N/mm ) 1,358 1,358 1,358 ment between the numerical and experimental data was observed.
Kss and Ktt (N/mm3) 20,358 20,358 20,358 Another way of validating the interface behavior is to compare
tno , tso , and tto (MPa) 3.02 5.01 5.63 the failure modes from the FE simulation with those observed dur-
Total/plastic displacement (mm) 0.018 0.117 0.241 ing testing. According to Hussein et al. (2016), tensile failure for the
Stabilization 0.001 0.001 0.001 UHPC-HSC test specimen with a smooth interface surface took

30
Sm-EXP
Mr-EXP
Ro-EXP
25 Sm-FEM
Mr-FEM
Ro-FEM
20
Load (kN)

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 9. Experimental (EXP) and finite-element model (FEM) load-displacement curves for smooth (Sm), midrough (Mr), and rough (Ro) surfaces

© ASCE 04017043-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. (Color) Failure modes for (a) smooth, (b) midrough, and (c) rough surfaces from FE models and failure modes for (d) smooth, (e) midrough,
and (f) rough surfaces from experimental tests

Fig. 11. (Color) EPT and failure modes of FE slant-shear model with one deformation scale factor for (a) smooth, (b) midrough, and (c) rough
UHPC-HSC interface surfaces

place at the bond line. For the midrough surface, the tensile failure
primarily occurred in the transition zone adjacent to the bond line,
whereas failure for the rough surface occurred mainly in the HSC
substrate. The results of the FE simulations using the calibrated
interface behavior showed good agreement with the experimental
results in terms of the failure modes. Figs. 10(a–c) represent the
simulated equivalent plastic strain (EPT) in the HSC for different
types of interface surface roughness. For the smooth surface shown
in Fig. 10(a), the existence of EPT was limited to a small area and
indicated that bond failure occurred at the interface between the
materials, with very little damage occurring in the HSC. The result
is consistent with the actual failure mode observed during testing,
as shown in Fig. 10(d). For the model with the midrough surface, as
shown in Fig. 10(b), the EPT in the HSC is higher and occurs over a
slightly larger area, indicating that failure occurred at the bond line
with some damage to the HSC. Again, the result is consistent with
the failure mode observed during testing [Fig. 10(e)]. For the rough
surface, the EPT value was even higher than that for the midrough
surface and occurred over a larger area, as shown Fig. 10(c). The
failure in the test for the rough surface occurred mainly in the HSC
elements with some damage at the interface between UHPC and
HSC and was consistent with the observed failure mode during test-
ing, as shown in Fig. 10(f).
Slant-Shear Model
The slant-shear models of UHPC-HSC specimens with different
degrees of surface roughness were used to validate the interface pa-
rameters determined in the previous section along with the friction
coefficient calculated in previous work (Tables 2 and 3). To do so,

© ASCE 04017043-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043

 simulation results obtained by loading the FE model to failure were
compared with the experimental results provided by the FHWA-
TFHRC. The load at failure with the failure mode is shown in
Table 4 for both the numerical and experimental studies, and good
agreement was obtained. Additional validation for the slant-shear
models can be seen by comparing the simulated failure modes with
those observed during testing. For the slant-shear models with the
smooth and midrough surfaces, failure took place at the interface
(bond line) with some EPT-damaged elements in the HSC, as
shown in Figs. 11(a and b). Initially, in the shear direction along the
UHPC-HSC interface, the adhesive model was active and the fric-
tion model was inactive, whereas the adhesive strength of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
UHPC bond resisted the tangential slip. Once the adhesive strength
of the UHPC bond reaches the maximum value and damage was ini-
tiated, the contribution of adhesion to the shear stress was reduced,
and the friction model became active. Once the ultimate adhesive
strength was reached, only the friction contributed to the shear re-
sistance on the interface surface. For the UHPC-HSC with the rough
surface, Hussein et al. (2016) assumed the cohesion value of the
HSC from the direct tension test to be the minimum value of adhe-
sion at the material interface and then treated the resulting friction
coefficient from the back-calculation as a maximum value. This
approach was validated in the slant-shear simulation with the rough
surface as failure took place in the HSC, as shown in Fig. 11(c).
These modes of failure obtained via FE simulation were consistent
with those observed during FHWA-TFHRC testing (Table 4).
Adjacent Box-Beam Model
Model Calibration
The results of the slant-shear simulations in the previous section
demonstrated that the interface parameters and friction coefficients
for the three types of surface roughness may be used to simulate the
interface behavior in UHPC-HSC connections. In this section, the
Table 4. Results of FE Slant-Shear Model
Roughness Experimental average Failure
degree P (kN) experiment
Smooth 75.86 Bond
Midrough 252.2 Bond
Rough 620.4 Concrete
7.2
EXP
FEM (E=35GPa)
7 FEM (E=37GPa)
FEM (E=40GPa)
6.8
Displacement mm
6.6
6.4
6.2
6 6
5.8
1 2 3 4
LVDT
(a)
Fig. 12. Deflection at LVDT locations along midspan with loads of (a) 22.2 kN north and 422.6 kN south beams, and (b) 422.6 kN north and 22.2 kN
south beams (Note: EXP = experimental; FEM = finite-element model)
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043
validated interface model will be used to simulate the behavior of
two adjacent box girders made of HSC and connected by a UHPC
joint and transverse SRBs. However, some calibration of the adja-
cent box-girder model was first necessary to identify the modulus of
elasticity of the girders, which were observed to have different flex-
ural stiffnesses during loading. The difference in stiffness is indi-
cated by the asymmetry in the experimental deflections compared
with the simulated deflections, as shown in Fig. 12(a). The differ-
ence in stiffness is also revealed in the difference in amplitude
between the girder deflections during cyclic loading, as shown in
Fig. 12(b). It should be noted that the girder stiffness was the only
parameter calibrated in the model. In the past, boundary conditions
used by some researchers included the standard assumption of sim-
ple supports with additional calibration by adding spring stiffening
in the longitudinal and transverse directions to create a good match
between the measured and calculated deflection (Fu et al. 2011;
Steinberg et al. 2013). In this study, the special mechanism used to
control the degree of rotational constraint at each end was modeled
in the FE program along with using a multistep analysis that repre-
sents the sequence in which the two adjacent girders were supported
and loaded during construction. The boundary conditions were
applied to the bottom of the steel plates by restraining the horizontal
and vertical movements, and frictional contact between the top of
the steel plates and the bottom of girder was also simulated.
To calibrate and validate the adjacent box-beam model, two load
cases from the FHWA-TFHRC testing were selected based on hav-
ing the highest deflection at the midspan of the beams during the ex-
perimental test. The first load case was 22.2 and 422.6 kN on north
and south beams, respectively, whereas the second load case
switched the load locations. Model calibration resulted in values of
4 and 35 GPa for the modulus of the north and south beams, respec-
tively, and a comparison of the simulated and experimental vertical
deflections at midspan is shown in Fig. 13(a). The second load case
was then used to check the calibrated model, and the vertical deflec-
tions at midspan are shown in Fig. 13(b). Good agreement between
the simulated and experimental results for both load cases was
FE model obtained.
P (kN) Another method that was used to validate the adjacent box-beam
model was a comparison of the beam reactions. The reactions were
75.713 measured during the laboratory testing using load cells placed
227.31 between the beams and supports (Fig. 5). There was a single load
602.75 cell placed beneath each beam at one end of the test specimen and
7.2
North beam LVDT1
South beam LVDT4
7
6.8
Displacement mm
6.6
6.4
6.2
5.8
0 50 100 150
Time
(b)
04017043-11 J. Bridge Eng.
 7.2 7.2
EXP EXP
7 FEM 7 FEM

6.8 6.8
Displacement mm

Displacement mm
6.6 6.6

6.4 6.4

6.2 6.2

6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5.8 5.8
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
LVDT LVDT
(a) (b)

Fig. 13. Deflection at LVDT locations along midspan for (a) Load Case 1 and (b) Load Case 2, comparing experimental and simulation values

300 150
EXP EXP
250 FEM 130
FEM
110
200 90
Reaction (kN)

Reaction (kN)
150 70
50
100
30
50 10
-10
0
-30
-50 -50
1 2 1 2 3 4
North beam South beam
North beam South beam
(a) (b)

Fig. 14. Reactions at (a) Support A-A and (b) Support B-B for loads of 22.2 and 422.6 kN on the north and south beams

two load cells placed beneath each beam at the opposite end. The
same conditions were represented in the FE model, as shown in
Fig. 8. The reactions measured by each load cell for the first load
case (22.2 and 422.6 kN on north and south beams) are presented in
Fig. 14 along with the simulated values, and good agreement is
observed at both ends of the beams. Furthermore, the total reaction
at the supports from both the experiments and the simulations was
determined to be the same, that is, 446 kN. The last data point used
to validate the adjacent box-beam model was the joint opening at
midspan. The opening reported by FHWA-TFHRC was 0.021 mm,
whereas the opening determined using the FE model was 0.025 mm,
showing good agreement between the model and the experimental
measurement.
UHPC-HSC Interface Model Comparison
It has been shown that the proposed model is capable of represent-
ing the interface behavior resulting from the combination of adhe-
sion and friction forces in UHPC-HSC connections with smooth,
midrough, and rough surfaces. As discussed previously, past efforts
to model the UHPC-HSC interface have used a variety of
approaches, and a comparison of the proposed model with those
from past research may be of interest to the reader. The first model
selected for comparison is based on the interface assumptions
specified in ACI (2011). The ACI model uses a friction coefficient
of 0.8, hard contact at the interface between the UHPC-HSC surfa-
ces, and no adhesion (assumed to be cracked). The second model
was adopted from Chen and Graybeal (2010, 2012a), who modeled
the interface between UHPC components using hard contact and an
assumed friction coefficient ranging from 0.1 to 0.3. Although the
model was UHPC to UHPC, adhesion at the interface was neglected
and the surface interaction was based only on friction, making the
results relevant to the present comparison. The third model selected
for comparison is based on Steinberg et al. (2013). In the model, a
friction coefficient of 0.8 is used along with a maximum shear re-
sistance at the interface of 5.5 MPa. The interface surface is
assumed to have a contact stiffness of 13.6 MPa/mm with a limit on
the penetration between the UHPC and HSC components.
The ACI (2011), Chen and Graybeal (2010, 2012a), and
Steinberg et al. (2013) models, along with the model proposed in
this work, were used to simulate the response of the two adjacent
box beams from the FHWA-TFHRC study for the load case having
22.2 and 422.6 kN on the north and south beams, respectively. The
simulated vertical deflections at midspan of the beams, along with
the experimental data from the FHWA-TFHRC tests, are shown in
Fig. 15 for comparison. The results show that all of the models are
capable of capturing the general trend in the vertical deflection

© ASCE 04017043-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043

 7.2
EXP
FEM (Present study)
FEM (ACI, 2011)
7
FEM (Steinberg et al., 2013)
FEM (Chen and Graybeal, 2010 and 2012a)

6.8
Displacement (mm)
6.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6.4

6.2

5.8
1 2 3 4
LVDT

Fig. 15. Deflection at LVDT locations along midspan of the beams for different interface models compared with experimental values

observed during testing, but that the model proposed in the present
study fits the experimental data the closest. The results demonstrate
the importance of considering friction and adhesion at the interface
between the UHPC and HSC materials and using an appropriate
model for capturing the interface and material behavior.
Conclusion
Recent application of UHPC for bridge connections has resulted in
an improvement in the overall bridge performance, which can be
attributed to the higher strength of the UHPC and the higher bond
strength between UHPC and the adjacent elements, relative to tradi-
tional grouting materials. However, there has been limited informa-
tion on the role of UHPC’s enhanced material and mechanical prop-
erties on the load transfer mechanism between bridge members. In
the present study, a detailed 3D FE model was developed in which
both the material and interface properties of the connection ele-
ments were considered. Both friction and adhesion at the material
interface were accounted for and the nonlinear material and inter-
face behaviors were represented. Material properties were deter-
mined directly from laboratory testing, whereas the interface pa-
rameters were identified through model calibration using the results
of direct tension tests and friction coefficients reported in the previ-
ous work. The model was validated via comparison with laboratory
testing conducted at the FHWA-TFHRC. The following conclu-
sions can be drawn based on the results:
1. The direct tension model using the calibrated interface behavior
showed good agreement with the experimental results in terms
of deflections and the failure modes for all types of surface
roughness.
2. The slant-shear model produced an ultimate load and failure
mode close to the experimental results for the three types of
surface roughness, highlighting the importance of simulating
the interface behavior in the UHPC-HSC connection.
3. From the adjacent box-girder model, good agreement between
the simulated and experimental results for both load cases was
obtained. This was achieved by considering the special mecha-
nism for controlling the degree of rotational constraint in the
FE model and performing a multistep analysis that represents
the sequence in which the two adjacent girders were loaded
during construction.
4. The interface model from the proposed work, and those from
past research, were used to simulate the response of the two ad-
jacent box girders. The results show that all of the models are
capable of capturing the general trend in the vertical deflection
that was observed during testing, but that the proposed model
fits the experimental data the closest. The results highlight the
importance of considering friction and adhesion at the interface
between the UHPC and HSC materials and of using a high-
fidelity model to represent the system behavior.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) staff, who
played a vital part in this research, including Dr. Benjamin Graybeal
and Dr. JiQiu Yuan.
References
AASHTO. (2012). LRFD Bridge design specifications, 6th Ed.,
Washington, DC.
Abaqus 6.12-3 [Computer software]. Dassault Systèmes SIMULIA,
Providence, RI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2011). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318R-11, Farmington
Hills, MI.

© ASCE 04017043-13 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043

 ASTM. (2003). “Standard test method for bond strength of adhesive sys-
tems used with concrete as measured by direct tension (withdrawn
2010).” C1404/C1404M-98, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2004). “Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylin-
drical concrete specimens.” C496/C496M-11, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2013). “Standard test method for bond strength of epoxy-resin sys-
tems used with concrete by slant shear.” C882/C882M-13a, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014). “Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindri-
cal concrete specimens.” C39/C39M-14a, West Conshohocken, PA.
Badwan, I., and Liang, R. (2007). “Performance evaluation of precast
posttensioned concrete multibeam deck.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:5(368), 368–374.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Chen, L., and Graybeal, B. (2012a). “Modeling structural performance of
second-generation ultrahigh-performance concrete pi-beams.” J. Bridge
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000301, 634–643.
Chen, L., and Graybeal, B. (2012b). “Modeling structural performance of
ultrahigh performance concrete I-beams.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000395, 754–764.
Chen, L., and Graybeal, B. A. (2010). “Finite element analysis of ultra-high
performance concrete: Modeling structural performance of an
AASHTO Type II beam and a 2nd generation pi-beam.” U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-11-020, National Technical
Information Service Accession No. PB2011-100864, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Dias-da-Costa, D., Alfaiate, J., and Júlio, E. N. B. S. (2012). “FE modeling
of the interfacial behaviour of composite concrete members.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 26(1), 233–243.
Fu, C., Pan, Z., and Ahmed, M. (2011). “Transverse posttensioning design
of adjacent precast solid multibeam bridges.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000147, 223–230.
Grace, N., Ushijima, K., Baah, P., and Bebawy, M. (2013). “Flexural behav-
ior of a carbon fiber–reinforced polymer prestressed decked bulb T-
beam bridge system.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
-5614.0000345, 497–506.
Grace, N. F., Jensen, E., Matsagar, V., Bebawy, M., Soliman, E., and
Hanson, J. (2008). “Use of unbonded CFCC for transverse post-tension-
ing of side-by-side box-beam bridges.” Research Rep. RC-1509,
Michigan DOT, Lansing, MI.
Graybeal, B. (2014). “Design and construction of field-cast UHPC connec-
tions.” Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-14-084, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Graybeal, B. A. (2006). “Material property characterization of ultra-high per-
formance concrete.” Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-06-103, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Harris, D. K., Carbonell, M. A., Gheitasi, A., Ahlborn, T. M., and Rush,
S. V. (2014). “The challenges related to interface bond characterization
of ultra-high-performance concrete with implications for bridge rehabil-
itation practices.” Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater., 4(2), 75–101.
Hussein, H., Walsh, K., Sargand, S., and Steinberg, E. (2016). “Interfacial
properties of ultrahigh-performance concrete and high-strength concrete
© ASCE 04017043-14
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(8): 04017043
bridge connections.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943
-5533.0001456, 04015208.
Issa, M. A., Ribeiro Do Valle, C. L., Abdalla, H. A., Shahid Islam, P., and
Issa, M. A. (2003). “Performance of transverse joint grout materials in
full-depth precast concrete bridge deck systems.” PCI J., 48(4), 92–103.
Júlio, E. N., Branco, F. A., and Silva, V. D. (2004). “Concrete-to-concrete
bond strength. Influence of the roughness of the substrate surface.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 18(9), 675–681.
ODOT (Ohio DOT). (2013). “Ohio construction and material specifica-
tions.” Construction Specification 706.05, Office of Structural
Engineering, Columbus, OH.
Porter, S., Julander, J., Halling, M., Barr, P., Boyle, H., and Xing, S. (2011).
“Flexural testing of precast bridge deck panel connections.” J. Bridge
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000173, 422–430.
Russell, H. G. (2009). Adjacent precast concrete box-beam bridges:
Connection details, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Russell, H. G. (2011). “Adjacent precast concrete box-beam bridges: State
of the practice.” PCI J., 56(1), 75–91.
Russell, H. G., and Graybeal, B. A. (2013). “Ultra-high performance concrete:
A state-of-the-art report for the bridge community.” Rep. No. FHWA-
HRT-13-060, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Santos, P., and Júlio, E. N. (2012). “A state-of-the-art review on shear-
friction.” Eng. Struct., 45(Dec), 435–448.
Santos, P., Júlio, E. N., and Silva, V. (2007). “Correlation between con-
crete-to-concrete bond strength and the roughness of the substrate sur-
face.” Constr. Build. Mater., 21(8), 1688–1695.
Sargand, S. M., Walsh, K. K., Hussein, H. H., Al Rikabi, F. T., and
Steinberg, E. P. (2017). “Modeling the shear connection in adjacent
box-beam bridges with ultrahigh-performance concrete joints. II: Load
transfer mechanism.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0001071, 04017044.
Steinberg, E., Huffman, J., Ubbing, J., and Giraldo-Londoño, O. (2013).
“Finite element modeling of adjacent prestressed concrete box-beams.”
Proc., PCI National Bridge Conf., Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute, Chicago.
Steinberg, E., Semendary, A., and Walsh, K. (2015). “Adjacent precast
box-beam bridges: Using UHPC longitudinal joints.” Constr. Specifier,
68(8), 28–42.
Steinberg, E., Ubbing, J., Giraldo-Londoño, O., and Semendary, A. (2014).
“Parametric analysis of adjacent prestressed concrete box-beams with
UHPC-dowel shear keys.” Proc., PCI National Bridge Conf., Precast
/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago.
Ulku, E., Attanayake, U., and Aktan, H. M. (2010). “Rationally designed
staged posttensioning to abate reflective cracking on side-by-side box-
beam bridge decks.” Transportation Research Record, 2172, 87–95.
Yuan, J., and Graybeal, B. (2016). “Full-scale testing of shear key details
for precast concrete box-beam bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000906, 04016043.
Zilch, K., and Reinecke, R. (2000). “Capacity of shear joints between high-
strength precast elements and normal-strength cast-in-place decks.”
Proc., PCI/FHWA/FIB Int. Symp. on High Performance Concrete,
Orlando, FL, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago.
J. Bridge Eng.